Replies

One has to view studies of homosexuality based on genetics with skepticism. If human evolution is true, the researchers need to explain how a genetic trait which results in a behavior which does not produce progeny is carried forward in the genetic pool of a population? Also, an explanation should be given to explain the obvious ever-increasing rates of occurrence of this abnormal behavioral expression? Although I can imagine viable explanations for the second question, I cannot imagine how genes can be passed between generations when there are no generations.

Muleteam1

Although I can imagine viable explanations for the second question, I cannot imagine how genes can be passed between generations when there are no generations.

My guess is that they will say we all have this gay gene but people supress the gayness and now they are accepting this "feeling" and running with it.

So in about 2 generations, Darwins theory will take hold.

Of course I believe none of this junk. Environment and mortal sin is the cause in my Book.

Two answers to this:

(1) many human traits reduce the likelihood that an individual will survive to reproduction, and increase the likelihood that one who has reproduced will die during his children's childhood, making them vulnerable to not reproducing themselves. Courage, audacity, risk-taking, all have the tendency to lead to early death. However, these traits have great COMMUNAL benefit, and advance the reproduction of the "tribe" (the closely related pool of genes), and hence are evolutionarily selected. Perhaps homosexuality, or, rather, the other traits that accompany it in a genetic package, have some tribal benefit.

(2) homosexuality is in some instances congenital, not (or not entirely) genetic -- i.e., caused by accidents or conditions in fetal development, not inheritance from parents. One strong piece of evidence of intrauterine causation is the correllation between birth order of sons and homosexuality. First sons of one mother are less likely to be gay, second sons of one mother are slightly more likely, and by the time you get to fifth and sixth sons of the same mother, some studies show extraordinarily high rates of homosexuality (into the 30%-40% range). The supposition is that each male carried to term changes the "starting point" balance of testerone, estrogen, and androgen.

"One has to view studies of homosexuality based on genetics with skepticism. If human evolution is true, the researchers need to explain how a genetic trait which results in a behavior which does not produce progeny is carried forward in the genetic pool of a population?

Well, the cool thing about evolution is that it is a concept so pliable and plastic, that it can be formed to almost any set of facts. So I'm sure there are folks out there who say that homosexuality in a population results in better haircuts so that the heterosexuals, having been preened by the homos, are really extra hot to get it on and attract partners from other clans.

There are any number of such schemes you could invent, and if you have a grant, get it published, and you would have people on this site reverently call it "Science".

If human evolution is true, the researchers need to explain how a genetic trait which results in a behavior which does not produce progeny is carried forward in the genetic pool of a population?

In many, if not all cultures, family plays an important role in a person's social status. Having children was and is often a measure of a man's masculinity and a woman's femininity, and having numerous children could be seen as a sign of being a successful member of the community.

Thus, even a person who found no pleasure in heterosexual sex might submit to it in order to obey the family matriarch, satisfy the demands of the tribal gods, prove his virility, or produce warriors to strengthen his clan.

Also, an explanation should be given to explain the obvious ever-increasing rates of occurrence of this abnormal behavioral expression?

It may be that it is not the rates of occurence that are increasing, but rather the outward display of homosexuality that is on the rise. Homosexuals may have been 4% of the population since the dawn of mankind, but perhaps 3% of them just kept their real desires to themselves for most of history. Some change in modern culture now leads that 3% to be more open about it.

Although I can imagine viable explanations for the second question, I cannot imagine how genes can be passed between generations when there are no generations.

I believe there are other genetic conditions that render a person extremely unlikely to reproduce, yet they still remain in our population. For example, Down's Syndrom is caused by genetics, yet a person with DS is unlikely to ever pass on their genes to offspring. Maybe some rare, particular combination of "straight" genes leads to homosexuality?